From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 10/05/03-08:23:05 AM Z
Shannon,
Just a few thoughts.
After the great debate between William Mortensen and Ansel Adams in
the 1930s in Camera Craft magazine straight photography became the
accepted canon of the photographic art establishment. This type of
photography was based on the idea that photography is defined by
technical parameters that give it a specific mission and impose on it
certain principles. Strand, for example, went so far as to say that
there are certain laws to which we must conform or be destroyed, and
that photography was subject to these laws: "Photography, being one
manifestation of life, is also subject to such laws. I mean by laws
those forces which control the qualities of things, which make it
impossible for an oak tree to bring forth chestnuts." Speaking of
gum printing, Strand went on to say that in the future "nobody will
be willing to spend the time and energy or have the conviction
necessary to the production of these things."
And so it was for several decades as pictorialism was pretty much
ignored by members of the art photography establishment. Just look at
some of the histories of photography published in the 50s, 60s and
70s and see how many of them have anything at all to say about
pictorialists such as Demachy, Holland Day, Mortensen, Kasebier,
Genthe, Ortiz-Echague, etc. There has been a significant revisionist
tendency toward pictorialism since the 1970s, one of the most
important examples of which is Peter Bunnell's book of essays, A
Photographic Vision, Pictorial Photography, 1889-1923.
The current interest in alternative printmaking processes began in
the late 60s with the re-discovery of the pinhole camera and the use
of photo silk-screen technique. And since the 1970s there has been an
increasing interest in the use of alternative printing processes.
Why has this taken place? Well, from my perspective much of it is due
to a kind of academic formalism that has resulted from the teaching
of photography at the college and university levels. Academic
formalism evolved from an attitude that places minimal value on the
thing being photographed (from whence the term "nominal subject
matter") and maximum importance on the freedom of the photographer to
make maximum use of the possibilities of the media, thus the
recuperation of historical printing processes and the return to
antiquated art strategies (surrealism, etc.)
Sandy
>I am working on a little paper about neo-Pictorialism and regular
>old Pictorialism. My idea, which I thought I invented but which
>turned out to be sort of a commonplace once I started researching
>it, is that the antiquarian avant-garde and Holga users and pinhole
>folks constitute some sort of revival of the old Pictorialist
>aesthetic of the late 19th and early 20th century. You know, soft
>focus, vignetting, romantic subject matter (sometimes), fooling with
>the negative, alternative processes, interest in dreams, memories,
>and visions as opposed to just the hard-edged, scientific, f64 world
>out there. This is an over-simplification but you get the drift.
>
>I was wondering if anybody has some ideas about why this "trend" has
>occurred, when it started, what it was a reaction to, where is it
>going, what is its relationship to other "avant gardes" that it is
>contemporaneous with, how it relates to so-called postmodernism,
>whether it is a form of postmodernism, whether it is just retro or
>truly avant-garde, how marginal it is, how academia and institutions
>see it, and any other questions you can think of. Of course I will
>credit you in my paper for any of your ideas, although I have no
>idea how to cite emails in the end notes. Maybe like: "Jane Doe,
>email communication, 10/4/03" ?
>
>Also if you have images that illustrate your idea about this, that
>would be great too (attached to emails to me off-list of course),
>or links to websites could be sent to the list or just to me, as you
>wish.
>
>We had a fun meeting in Houston yesterday at Clay Harmon's house,
>and I saw a lot of stuff that fueled my interest in this question,
>and I heard a lot of good ideas about why we do what we do. Thanks,
>Houston and Austin folks, and especially Clay.
>
>thanks in advance for your thoughts,
>
>--shannon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:17 AM Z CST